"Fanfare" Magazine

[Tarantella]

This is an excellent magazine, as I suppose many of you have read it and still do read it.

http://www.fanfaremag.com/content/view/51556/10261/

[richardfinegold]

As a regular subscriber for the last 30 or so years, I concur. My main complaint is that there is to much to read. I pretty much skip the first 250 pages of each issue, which are primarily interviews with performers or composers, unless I see an interviewee that particularly interests me. If I didn't do this I would never make it to the reviews and finish those before the next issue.
Their index and archive is also well done. I've reread some interviews with performers who were featured in previous issues after I heard a subsequent recording or performance.

[Ferretfancy]

As a regular subscriber for the last 30 or so years, I concur. My main complaint is that there is to much to read. I pretty much skip the first 250 pages of each issue, which are primarily interviews with performers or composers, unless I see an interviewee that particularly interests me. If I didn't do this I would never make it to the reviews and finish those before the next issue.
Their index and archive is also well done. I've reread some interviews with performers who were featured in previous issues after I heard a subsequent recording or performance.

I'm glad I'm not alone in skipping! Some of the long interviews are with performers who are little known here, and any case it's generally not very revealing when they discuss what they are trying to achieve when we haven't heard their performances or compositions.

The reviews are the thing, and also the wonderful arguments that rage on the letters pages, they don't pull their punches and make the correspondence in our magazines look pale. It's a bit bulky to read in bed -another black mark!.

[LHC]

It appears that the reasons the interviews are often with little known performers may be that the feature and review is paid for by the performer.

Norman Lebrecht on his blog has carried a number of stories which suggest an unhealthy connection between Fanfare's marketing and its reviewing practices:

http://www.artsjournal.com/slippeddisc/2011/10/how-to-buy-a-record-review.html

http://www.artsjournal.com/slippeddisc/2011/11/record-critic-resigns-over-skewed-reviews-policy.html

http://www.artsjournal.com/slippeddisc/2012/07/want-a-nice-review-youll-have-to-pay-for-it.html

NL claims that Fanfare Magazine operates the dubious practice of guaranteeing companies/performers that their CD will be reviewed in return for taking out an expensive advert in the magazine. For even more money, they will interview the performer and highlight the review. As the letter from the editor to prospective interviewees that NL quotes states:

"When you’re interviewed, the review of your CD will be attached to your feature in the front of the edition instead of being published in the regular classical CD review section of the issue."

If reviews are indeed guaranteed in return for cash (and if it is also true that Fanfare will try to find a 'sympathetic' reviewer), it does rather call into question the independence of their reviews. It might also explain why each issue features a certain number reviews of CDs that are little more than vanity publishing.

[gurnemanz]

I have enjoyed reading some of their material online but the prospect of 250 skippable pages and rigged reviews doesn't make the magazine sound all that enticing.

[Ferretfancy]

I have enjoyed reading some of their material online but the prospect of 250 skippable pages and rigged reviews doesn't make the magazine sound all that enticing.

The long interviews at the front of the magazine are followed by reviews of the performances in question. Perhaps these are rigged as suggested, but this section is followed by a completely separate section alphabetically listing reviews of new releases and reissues from all sources and these seem reliable. Moreover, the correspondence section often publishes contrary opinions, and the debates sometimes get quite heated

[Parry1912]

Norman Lebrecht

[richardfinegold]

It appears that the reasons the interviews are often with little known performers may be that the feature and review is paid for by the performer.

Norman Lebrecht on his blog has carried a number of stories which suggest an unhealthy connection between Fanfare's marketing and its reviewing practices:

http://www.artsjournal.com/slippeddisc/2011/10/how-to-buy-a-record-review.html

http://www.artsjournal.com/slippeddisc/2011/11/record-critic-resigns-over-skewed-reviews-policy.html

http://www.artsjournal.com/slippeddisc/2012/07/want-a-nice-review-youll-have-to-pay-for-it.html

NL claims that Fanfare Magazine operates the dubious practice of guaranteeing companies/performers that their CD will be reviewed in return for taking out an expensive advert in the magazine. For even more money, they will interview the performer and highlight the review. As the letter from the editor to prospective interviewees that NL quotes states:

"When you’re interviewed, the review of your CD will be attached to your feature in the front of the edition instead of being published in the regular classical CD review section of the issue."

If reviews are indeed guaranteed in return for cash (and if it is also true that Fanfare will try to find a 'sympathetic' reviewer), it does rather call into question the independence of their reviews. It might also explain why each issue features a certain number reviews of CDs that are little more than vanity publishing.

Except for one consideration: the accompanying reviews (of the articles) frequently criticize the performance. They may guarantee their advertisers get a review, but they don't seem to guarantee a positive review. Having read the magazine for decades, i do think that they manage to keep their independence.
When I do read the articles, I am frequently tempted to purchase the recordings featured, only to be dissuaded by the negative review that follows the interview.

[richardfinegold]

Norman Lebrecht

That too

[Ian]

Except for one consideration: the accompanying reviews (of the articles) frequently criticize the performance.

Not everybody pays up. The reviews aren't rigged as much as they simply find (when appropriately motivated) a reviewer that likes the recording - and why not? This is particularly relevant to new music which is always vulnerable to critics that simply don't like the type of music it is - something you tend not to get with standard repertoire. Would an editor send a new Chopin disc to a reviewer that doesn't like Chopin?

[Ferretfancy]

It's also good that in the main review section some items are given full reviews by two different reviewers who give different takes on the performance.

[Sir Velo]

It's also good that in the main review section some items are given full reviews by two different reviewers who give different takes on the performance.

The problem with that approach is that gives the lie to there being such a thing as an authoritative review. Moreover, unless one has an opportunity to hear the performance in question, extremely confusing to the prospective buyer. Having said that, I used to like Gramophone's Quarterly Retrospect with respected critics of the calibre of Robert Layton, who would often temper the enthusiasm of less experienced colleagues.